darren wrote:I'm a little tired of certain people posting that we could have kept the Hoff for a 4m cap hit (ie his Buffalo contract). That would have necessitated signing the Hoff until he is 38 years old. How many 38 year old NHL defensemen are there who are still worth a 4m cap hit (and aren't named Nik Lidstrom)?

darren wrote:I'm a little tired of certain people posting that we could have kept the Hoff for a 4m cap hit (ie his Buffalo contract). That would have necessitated signing the Hoff until he is 38 years old. How many 38 year old NHL defensemen are there who are still worth a 4m cap hit (and aren't named Nik Lidstrom)?

Never mind the enormous amount of money it took to get that cap hit. I think it's pretty obvious Ehrhoff was looking for a big payday (nothing wrong with that) and Canucks weren't looking to skew their defensive payroll with massive upfront payments. If the Canucks did what the Sabres did I'd expect a guy like Bieksa to be pretty pissed off and a guy liked Edler thinking AWESOME!, I am next.

As for the duration of the deal, it's meaningless. Either he doesn't play it out or the Sabres trade him to a team fighting to make a cap basement. (or whatever the next CBA contains)

darren wrote:I'm a little tired of certain people posting that we could have kept the Hoff for a 4m cap hit (ie his Buffalo contract). That would have necessitated signing the Hoff until he is 38 years old. How many 38 year old NHL defensemen are there who are still worth a 4m cap hit (and aren't named Nik Lidstrom)?

I dont think a 10 year deal was ever discussed here.

True, but the 4m cap hit certainly has been. The 4m cap hit implies the 10 year deal.

re: getting out of the end of a 10 year Ehrhoff deal.... we don't really know what the league will look like five or six years from now... there might not be cheapskate teams struggling to get to the floor anymore, who are happy to take an underperforming 4m cap hit defenceman. It's all speculation of course, but I don't think that risk is meaningless.

darren wrote:re: getting out of the end of a 10 year Ehrhoff deal.... we don't really know what the league will look like five or six years from now... there might not be cheapskate teams struggling to get to the floor anymore, who are happy to take an underperforming 4m cap hit defenceman. It's all speculation of course, but I don't think that risk is meaningless.

Errrr, ummm, let me be the first to say it, but I know of a team that took on an underperforming $4M+ defenceman. I find your speculation hard to take seriously. But maybe we can package up Luongo in that Ehrhoff trade in 2017 and some lucky team will make the cap floor.

Meds wrote:I've often found that the Canucks could use that space to really generate some more offense and be a threat in more ways than just the cute board play and give-and-go's. I hate watching the Sedin's when they start their phonebooth passing plays that allow defenders to smother them without surrendering a real passing lane to a scoring threat. The Wing's were often more spread out then we were last night once in the offensive zone, and their player movement away from the puck was much better. The only line that really excelled last night with the short range, in close passing and attack was Detroit's top line, and that is only because Datsyuk has amazing hands that are combined with quick feet. Hank and Dank have great hands too, but aren't as quick and shifty as Datsyuk.

Good observation.

The Canucks have had trouble in the offensive zone mostly because they're not disciplined in their positioning and aren't wining enough battles, nor are they making smart offensive plays.

Meds wrote:Bases are covered and you just set yourself up to score from 3 positions off the rebound following a shot, and have allowed for multiple passing opportunities as well as the option of setting back up as the R-dman can now slide to the L-point and the original trigger man can cover on the R-point until the team can cycle again.

The draw back of that is not having enough puck support on entries and scrums along the board. The Canucks like to overload so they can retrieve pucks and work off the side and end boards. Being spread out works better when you enter the zone with possession or are able to chip and chase and retrieve the puck without support or a hard battle.

I would like to see the Canucks be a bit more unpredictable offensively this year, and considering the league has seen enough of how the Canucks play, they need to have some new offensive looks to keep the opposition on their toes.

dhabums wrote:Errrr, ummm, let me be the first to say it, but I know of a team that took on an underperforming $4M+ defenceman. ---

You missed my point. How do you know the Panthers will even be in the league six years from now? *That* is when a team would be hypothetically looking at dumping the Hoff's contract.

Hypothetically the world could be gone in 6 years. I am not for giving Hoff what he got, but it is a ridiculous premise to think that 1 player being slightly overpaid in 6 years is a serious concern and that getting that salary off the books would be so hypothetically impossible that signing it would be franchise suicide.

Well, not so much adds. I just think it's kewl to be able to post a video on the thread, so readers can just click on it and watch it rather than clicking on a link. Hope Brian and Cornuck feels the same way.